M
mapleoak
Guest
Actually Moreover, it is clear that that life is not separate from the airplane.
How do abortion supporters reconcile their support for abortion . .
- Status
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Right. And so airline passengers are clearly not human – and if the pilot wants to depressurize the cabin and asphixiate them all, that’s his “choice.”
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
I thought we were talking about when the rational human soul entered the body–or when the human lump of genetic material became a human being. Perhaps we were just talking about genetics.
Daniel Schiff in “Abortion and Judaism” from Cambridge U. Press writes:
“Perhaps of greatest significance, however, the Exodus legislation is without peer insofar as it does not merely depict the mother’s life as being of a higher value, but it ascribes to her a status that is on a qualitatively different plane. It stands alone in requiring that the compensation for her loss be appropriate to the loss of a nefesh, while the compensation for the fetus is evaluated simply on the basis of its features.” (pg. 13) He goes on, “In their specification of the mother as a nefesh as opposed to the fetus, they appear to convey the sense that the status of maternal life is superior to that of the fetus.” (pg. 14)
The Septuagint (which was of course the version of Scripture adopted by the church) misconstrues the Hebrew into suggesting that the fetus has life (in so doing, the mother is written out of the picture entirely). This was probably due to the influence of Hellenistic thought on the translators (as it betokens a Platonic understanding of the spiritual development of the fetus–vegetable, animal, then rational soul–as opposed to the traditional Hebraic notion that the human body and soul are one nefesh/life). But even there, the sense is clear that if the fetus is not human-like, the aggressor pays property damage, not the penalty for taking a life–this reading is borne out by Philo, by the way, a Hellenized Jew of the first century who is something like our de facto authority on the Hellenized Jewish community of the first century. However, Philo also writes, “But when the children are brought forth and are separated from that which is produced with them, and are set free and placed by themselves, they then become real living creatures…” (pg. 22).
Again, I maintain that the issue is sufficiently gray. Certainties are great, and are very comforting–I’m sure your certainties are very comforting to you,and let it be said that I’m not trying to disabuse you of them. I’m just stating where I am on the issue, an issue which is characterized (I would argue mischaracterized) as black and white from both sides. I don’t think its as simple as you and others (on either side of the debate) would have us believe.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
Okay. It looks like I’ve been assuming that we’ve been talking about the same thing, but it’s clear we haven’t. I’m talking about when life begins. I’m not referring to a biological process. I’m talking about the rational human soul. Using your reasoning above, a cultured skin graft is a human being because it has human DNA. I don’t think so.
I thought we were talking about when the rational human soul entered the body–or when the human lump of genetic material became a human being. Perhaps we were just talking about genetics.
To you and to mapleoak, I would suggest you take a look at Exodus 21:22-25 which discusses what should be done if a pregnant woman is injured by someone (the Hebrew word is ASON). If the ASON/injury kills the fetus, the aggressor owes a fine based on the condition of the fetus (that is, more money owed if the fetus was not physically deformed or not fully formed)–that is, aggressor owes recompense for damaged property. If the injury killed the mother, however, the aggressor is liable for the life of the mother. Exodus characterizes the mother as having a nefesh–life. It does not so characterize the fetus. This is why the aggressor must pay for the life of the mother in the one case, and the value of property in the other.
Daniel Schiff in “Abortion and Judaism” from Cambridge U. Press writes:
“Perhaps of greatest significance, however, the Exodus legislation is without peer insofar as it does not merely depict the mother’s life as being of a higher value, but it ascribes to her a status that is on a qualitatively different plane. It stands alone in requiring that the compensation for her loss be appropriate to the loss of a nefesh, while the compensation for the fetus is evaluated simply on the basis of its features.” (pg. 13) He goes on, “In their specification of the mother as a nefesh as opposed to the fetus, they appear to convey the sense that the status of maternal life is superior to that of the fetus.” (pg. 14)
The Septuagint (which was of course the version of Scripture adopted by the church) misconstrues the Hebrew into suggesting that the fetus has life (in so doing, the mother is written out of the picture entirely). This was probably due to the influence of Hellenistic thought on the translators (as it betokens a Platonic understanding of the spiritual development of the fetus–vegetable, animal, then rational soul–as opposed to the traditional Hebraic notion that the human body and soul are one nefesh/life). But even there, the sense is clear that if the fetus is not human-like, the aggressor pays property damage, not the penalty for taking a life–this reading is borne out by Philo, by the way, a Hellenized Jew of the first century who is something like our de facto authority on the Hellenized Jewish community of the first century. However, Philo also writes, “But when the children are brought forth and are separated from that which is produced with them, and are set free and placed by themselves, they then become real living creatures…” (pg. 22).
Again, I maintain that the issue is sufficiently gray. Certainties are great, and are very comforting–I’m sure your certainties are very comforting to you,and let it be said that I’m not trying to disabuse you of them. I’m just stating where I am on the issue, an issue which is characterized (I would argue mischaracterized) as black and white from both sides. I don’t think its as simple as you and others (on either side of the debate) would have us believe.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
H
hasikelee
Guest
Wait, you’re trying to argue that a pre-born human doesn’t have a right not to be killed because the soul might not be present yet?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Unless there’s some other process I don’t know about.
Life, by definition, is a biological process.
By that definition, already born infants wouldn’t be “alive.” Elderly people with Alzheimers wouldn’t be “alive.”
What nonsense!
A cultured skin graft is not a human being, because the human being from whom the cells were taken is the human being!
A fertilized egg is alive. It has DNA – and if it’s human, it has human DNA. And it has its own DNA. It’s a human being, as human as you and I.
People who know more about scripture than you and I put together disagree with your exegeses.
S
st_lucy
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Okay. It looks like I’ve been assuming that we’ve been talking about the same thing, but it’s clear we haven’t. I’m talking about when life begins. I’m not referring to a biological process. I’m talking about the rational human soul. Using your reasoning above, a cultured skin graft is a human being because it has human DNA. I don’t think so.
I don’t think you know what biology is? Okay lets go back to what you SHOULD have learned in first grade Biology. What is alive? Does it grow? Does it eat and/or drink? Does it have the ability to reproduce?
In all of these questions the answer is yes. A fetus grows. It eats and drinks. He or she will have the ability to reproduce if given the chance.
You also refer to a rational human soul. Are you saying that a person who is not rational deserves death? So I really hope you never fall into a coma, or have alzheimer’s.
A cultured skin graft has the same DNA as the person it was cultured from - Plus it can’t grow, eat, drink or reproduce. As soon as an egg and sperm join a whole new DNA is made separate from the mother and father a DNA set that has never before and never will again be made. In other words a whole new being was created that can never be created again.
I thought we were talking about when the rational human soul entered the body–or when the human lump of genetic material became a human being. Perhaps we were just talking about genetics.
Again a human becomes a human at conception. At no other time does the DNA form other than at the exact time the sperm and egg join. THIS IS GENETICS. Again I am not sure what you mean by a “RATIONAL HUMAN”
D
dkoinzan
Guest
Abortion is a great evil and those that can’t see it are blinded by there sin. If they could see the truth they would choose it. You can argue both sides but really what it boils down to is spiritual warfare. If we want abortion to stop we have to begin to fast and pray as we never have before. Satin is the master at twisting truth and those that believe abortion is OK are wrapped up with the greatest of liars.
E
edwest2
Guest
It is sad that some people view this issue, or any issue, as a math problem: simply plug in the right argument and people will change their minds.
Put a cow embryo and a human embryo under a microscope. One is human and one is not. This is not a philosophical issue.
The embryo is a combination of genetic material from the mother and father. Scientifically provable fact.
Everyone reading this began life as an embryo.
Too often, the focus is on the woman. What about the man? In cases of conensual sex, isn’t he half responsible?
And what about the man who tells the woman: “I will leave you if you do/do not have this baby?”
It’s not complicated. The moment of conception (sperm fertilizes egg), you have a person.
God bless,
Ed
Put a cow embryo and a human embryo under a microscope. One is human and one is not. This is not a philosophical issue.
The embryo is a combination of genetic material from the mother and father. Scientifically provable fact.
Everyone reading this began life as an embryo.
Too often, the focus is on the woman. What about the man? In cases of conensual sex, isn’t he half responsible?
And what about the man who tells the woman: “I will leave you if you do/do not have this baby?”
It’s not complicated. The moment of conception (sperm fertilizes egg), you have a person.
God bless,
Ed
A
aboverubies
Guest
A friend of mine is a midwife and her role involves visiting new mothers suffering from severe post-natal depression to offer in-home counselling and support. She said a large percentage of these woman admit to having had one or more previous abortions. It is not until they hold their new baby in their arms that the truth of what they have done hits home. They are no longer able to deny the fact that they have taken the life of their own child, thus sinking them into deep depression.
B
Believe_85
Guest
I have a thought to add. Maybe I’m preaching to the choir…?
I have heard pro-choice supporters say they are exercising thier God-given free will, so no one has a right to interfere.
Here is the problem I have with this argument.
I think collectively everyone could agree child porn is wrong.
Using the above “free will” argument, we should allow people to view and produce child porn without consequences. After all, they are just exercising their free will.
I have heard pro-choice supporters say they are exercising thier God-given free will, so no one has a right to interfere.
Here is the problem I have with this argument.
I think collectively everyone could agree child porn is wrong.
Using the above “free will” argument, we should allow people to view and produce child porn without consequences. After all, they are just exercising their free will.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
vern humphrey:
Is it really that hard to see the point I’m trying to make? I’m not asking you to agree with it. Nor am I asking you to deny or question any particular biological fact. Indeed, a new life begins with conception, and indeed, the genetic material of that life is human. But I have a difficult time pointing to a blastocyst and saying, “Yes. That’s a living human being with a living human soul.” I can however say, “Yes. That’s a potential living human being.”
St. Lucy, your criteria for life are very broad and very basic. Vegetables meet the criteria as well. Should we begin arguing about whether or not vegetables have human rights?
st lucy:
st lucy:
We have two models of the soul, here. The Platonic and the Judaeo-Stoic. Both have an impact on the understanding of the soul in Christianity, though the former maintained a greater influence through Aristotelianism via Aquinas. The Platonic notion sees the fetus as receiving a vegetable soul, then an animal soul, then a rational human soul. Aquinas, for instance, believed that the fetus received a rational human soul after 40 days in the womb. The Judaeo-Stoic view sees the soul and body as one unit creating a single life or Nefesh. That wholeness does not appear to occur until the fetus is viable-- able, as Philo writes, to stand outside and apart from the mother and live.
Early Christian catalogues of penance seem to bear out the traditional understanding of Exodus–the penance prescribed for abortion is less than the penance prescribed for killing a child. That seems to imply that there is a qualitative difference between the two.
Anyway. All I’ve been trying to express are my feelings on this subject and the reasons why I feel the way I do–that its a big gray area and neither side of the argument seems to get it right. I’ve never once stated that abortion is a great thing, nor do I believe it is. For all my belief in the potential humanity of the fetus, I don’t therefore believe that the fetus has no value–in fact, I believe it’s that potentiality that gives the fetus value. Destroying that value doesn’t strike me as a particularly pleasant thing that should be generally encouraged or available on demand. But on the other hand, it doesn’t strike me as murder either. That’s my position. I’ve explained my reasons. The OP seemed to ask an honest question. Perhaps I was naive to think that the conversation could be any more than this:
A: I wonder how anyone can support abortion?
B: Well, I don’t support abortion, but these are my thoughts on it.
A: But abortion is murder!
B: Well…
A: No, you’re wrong!
B: Did you really want to have a conversation about this?
A: Clearly not!
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
I’ve just tried to articulate my difficulties with the issue. That’s all. To me, a phrase like “pre-born human” does not read “fully human”–it reads “almost human” or “pre-human”. So to argue about the presence or absence of human rights for something that is not human, or at best, possesses those rights in potential as a *potential *human being…well, I think it’s a bit meaningless.
vern humphrey:
st lucy:
Okay, guys. Granted, condescension can be very entertaining, but I thought we were being serious here.
Is it really that hard to see the point I’m trying to make? I’m not asking you to agree with it. Nor am I asking you to deny or question any particular biological fact. Indeed, a new life begins with conception, and indeed, the genetic material of that life is human. But I have a difficult time pointing to a blastocyst and saying, “Yes. That’s a living human being with a living human soul.” I can however say, “Yes. That’s a potential living human being.”
St. Lucy, your criteria for life are very broad and very basic. Vegetables meet the criteria as well. Should we begin arguing about whether or not vegetables have human rights?
st lucy:
I think you (and perhaps vern) are misunderstanding the phrase “rational human soul” which is a way of understanding how the human soul differs from the merely animal soul. A rational human soul is part of what makes us human–this was important in discussions of the nature of Christ as, for instance, the heretic Apollinarius claimed that Jesus did not have a rational human soul, but that the Logos took its place (which was to suggest, ultimately, that Christ was not fully human). I’m not saying that the ability to rationalize should determine life or death in any situation. Alzheimers sufferers and coma patients don’t really have anything to do with the discussion (I suppose you could make an argument for the latter pertaining to the topic, but certainly not the former). I clearly believe that the fetus has an animal soul of some sort, otherwise there would be no basic life in it, but I remain unconvinced that the fetus has a rational human soul.
st lucy:
No doubt. But it’s not merely my exegesis.
We have two models of the soul, here. The Platonic and the Judaeo-Stoic. Both have an impact on the understanding of the soul in Christianity, though the former maintained a greater influence through Aristotelianism via Aquinas. The Platonic notion sees the fetus as receiving a vegetable soul, then an animal soul, then a rational human soul. Aquinas, for instance, believed that the fetus received a rational human soul after 40 days in the womb. The Judaeo-Stoic view sees the soul and body as one unit creating a single life or Nefesh. That wholeness does not appear to occur until the fetus is viable-- able, as Philo writes, to stand outside and apart from the mother and live.
Early Christian catalogues of penance seem to bear out the traditional understanding of Exodus–the penance prescribed for abortion is less than the penance prescribed for killing a child. That seems to imply that there is a qualitative difference between the two.
Anyway. All I’ve been trying to express are my feelings on this subject and the reasons why I feel the way I do–that its a big gray area and neither side of the argument seems to get it right. I’ve never once stated that abortion is a great thing, nor do I believe it is. For all my belief in the potential humanity of the fetus, I don’t therefore believe that the fetus has no value–in fact, I believe it’s that potentiality that gives the fetus value. Destroying that value doesn’t strike me as a particularly pleasant thing that should be generally encouraged or available on demand. But on the other hand, it doesn’t strike me as murder either. That’s my position. I’ve explained my reasons. The OP seemed to ask an honest question. Perhaps I was naive to think that the conversation could be any more than this:
A: I wonder how anyone can support abortion?
B: Well, I don’t support abortion, but these are my thoughts on it.
A: But abortion is murder!
B: Well…
A: No, you’re wrong!
B: Did you really want to have a conversation about this?
A: Clearly not!
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
M
mapleoak
Guest
But it is human. It even has human DNA.
So was I. Do you consider disagreement to be condescension?
Therefore its alive!
Therefore its human.
Hmm, must be a living human being. Easy logic.
That makes no sense at all. How can come something be a living human being and potentially a living human being at the same time? What does potentially a living human being mean anyway?
Vegetables do not have human DNA and are therefore not human. Vegetables therefore do not deserve basic human rights. Munch away!
So you are saying a fetus starts out with one soul and then either has two souls or the first soul gets replaced with another. Or does it get upgraded?
T
Tracyms1974
Guest
Your comment about the unfinished painting
struck a chord with me, so I felt compelled to respond.
My daughter is four years old. She, in essence, is an “unfinished painting” by human standards. She can’t read, tie her shoes, write, or handle the household finances. I don’t see much difference between her and and a baby still in a mother’s womb, now that you mention it. So all this talk about these babies being not human is really nonsense because you may as well say that my daughter is not human. She can’t do everything an adult can do, why not? And hey - what’s to say that adult human beings are not “unfinished paintings” themselves? I know I am! The problem with some adults, myself included sometimes, is that unlike a dead canvas that an artist paints on, we oftentimes “walk away” from God’s holy paintbrush for us. We can choose not to be finished unlike a regular painting. Of course, a poor baby in the womb cannot choose for him/herself which is why this debate goes on and on. Someone else said that they don’t believe that abortion is murder. The only degree to which I agree with that is this: If abortion were to finally one day become illegal, which I do agree that it should, the very real and concrete penalty for the act will have to be decided. I myself think that life in prison would be pretty harsh. Even now, I think the penalties for killing children are less severe than adults, but I could be wrong about that. Unfortunately, it depends a lot of the time, on who, exactly, a person kills. The President of the US’s death is going to get a lot more investigative manpower than some poor hooker on Fifth Street. There just aren’t enough cops to go around, I guess.
The other comment about help for the poor and adoption and all that probably ties in with what I just said. In this world, resources and manpower are limited - everywhere. All you can do is the best you can do, and if you’ve done that, then you can sleep at night. There are some CSS (Catholic Social Services) agencies that help birthmoms place their children with loving families. I know Charlotte, NC has one. There are independent adoption agencies, DSS, which understandably, draws mixed emotions from folks. There’s help for the poor; the trick is finding it. I would imagine parish priests can help people find help as well. It’s actually a little easier to help the unborn. You can pray for them, and since they are not in the world as we are, you have time to find the help that you will need.
Well, I’ve run out of things to say. Amazing.
Tracy
S
st_lucy
Guest
So if you hold this idea - which is bizarre - are you okay than with one pulling apart the limbs of an animal? I knew a kid who did this when I was a child. It’s an animal he would tell us other kids, its not like you and me. He is now awaiting sentencing for burning an illegal immigrant alive. So my thought is why would you be okay with pulling apart a fetus - because you think it is not human, but still an animal?
T
Tracyms1974
Guest
I clearly believe that the fetus has an animal soul of some sort, otherwise there would be no basic life in it, but I remain unconvinced that the fetus has a rational human soul.
I’ve figured out what your problem is, Deo. (No offense; there’s just no better way to say it.) You, my friend, are hung up on abilities. If a person is not able to use what they have, then it must not be there. I think a baby in the womb has a rational soul and pretty much everything it needs to grow and develop, it just lacks the intelligence to use it. How many babies come out of the womb knowing English, or Spanish or German? Zero. But they have vocal chords and ears. They will learn. I’m sure when Jesus himself was six months old and just learning how to crawl, Mary never said, “Oh well, He’s not the Son of God because He doesn’t know any better.” Sure, at six months old, Jesus probably didn’t know He was the Son of God, but, that lack of knowledge did not make it not so or less so. God gives us what we need, including a soul, at conception. When we use it depends on us (free will) and our biological abilities or lack thereof.
Tracy
I’ve figured out what your problem is, Deo. (No offense; there’s just no better way to say it.) You, my friend, are hung up on abilities. If a person is not able to use what they have, then it must not be there. I think a baby in the womb has a rational soul and pretty much everything it needs to grow and develop, it just lacks the intelligence to use it. How many babies come out of the womb knowing English, or Spanish or German? Zero. But they have vocal chords and ears. They will learn. I’m sure when Jesus himself was six months old and just learning how to crawl, Mary never said, “Oh well, He’s not the Son of God because He doesn’t know any better.” Sure, at six months old, Jesus probably didn’t know He was the Son of God, but, that lack of knowledge did not make it not so or less so. God gives us what we need, including a soul, at conception. When we use it depends on us (free will) and our biological abilities or lack thereof.
Tracy
R
rinnie
Guest
Deo volente, The only thing I can say is a unfinished painting can not be compared to a Baby not fully developed. A Baby is a person and at the time it is starting to grow, that second it has a soul. The soul is the special part of a person no one else has. Your soul is what i like to consider the inner Christ in you. So to say a baby that is not fully developed can be compared to a painting no, I cant see your point there. Sorry.
H
hasikelee
Guest
So for you, do you believe the change happens due to location, or stage of development?
In other words, do you believe the human receives a soul during or after birth? Halfway down the canal? Does the head have to be out, or just crowning?
Or do you think the human receives a soul during a specific stage? Do you think that happens during the stage of the zygote? Embryo? Fetus? Exactly what time does that happen? How can we be sure, since we aren’t sure of the exact time of conception? Do we just hold that at exactly 11pm and 59 seconds on the night before the embryo goes into the fetal stage, the human now has a soul? Is this pacific time or central time?
Or maybe you find the “ability” or “formation” argument appealing. So, do you believe the human receives a soul once the heart begins to beat? Or is it when the brain stem begins to develop? Do the nerves have to be fully established? And the liver? Or just the fingers and toes? Exactly when can you determine that? What about those humans who develope earlier than others?
A
aboverubies
Guest
Our eldest son is 7 years old. He has never spoken a word. He cannot walk or even sit unsupported. His vision is severely impaired. He has a developmental delay and mostly lives in his own little world. Occasionally he lets us in. 
He suffers from cerebral palsy, epilepsy and hydrocephalus.
One quarter of his brain is missing, damaged in utero. He has an eating disorder and subsists on formula. He will never toilet train. He relies on us for everything. He cannot complete a single task without total assistance - bathing, dressing, feeding, mobility, communication.
He could be called an unfinished painting I guess. But I prefer to call him pure and perfect, for he has never sinned and never will and is closer to God than any of us.
He suffers from cerebral palsy, epilepsy and hydrocephalus.One quarter of his brain is missing, damaged in utero. He has an eating disorder and subsists on formula. He will never toilet train. He relies on us for everything. He cannot complete a single task without total assistance - bathing, dressing, feeding, mobility, communication.
He could be called an unfinished painting I guess. But I prefer to call him pure and perfect, for he has never sinned and never will and is closer to God than any of us.
S
st_lucy
Guest
What a beautiful son you have very handsome.Our eldest son is 7 years old. He has never spoken a word. He cannot walk or even sit unsupported. His vision is severely impaired. He has a developmental delay and mostly lives in his own little world. Occasionally he lets us in.
One quarter of his brain is missing, damaged in utero. He has an eating disorder and subsists on formula. He will never toilet train. He relies on us for everything. He cannot complete a single task without total assistance - bathing, dressing, feeding, mobility, communication.
He could be called an unfinished painting I guess. But I prefer to call him pure and perfect, for he has never sinned and never will and is closer to God than any of us.
Thank you for sharing him with us.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Those who believer that the unborn child is not fully human believe what they want to believe.
Those who believe that calling something “a choice” removes all moral considerations from that choice believe what they want to believe.
Those who believe that free will is a license to do anything they want to believe and escape the moral consequences believe what they want to believe.
Those who say, “I wouldn’t do it myself, but I believe it should be a woman’s choice” are giving aid and comfort to the greatest mass murder in history.
Those who believe that calling something “a choice” removes all moral considerations from that choice believe what they want to believe.
Those who believe that free will is a license to do anything they want to believe and escape the moral consequences believe what they want to believe.
Those who say, “I wouldn’t do it myself, but I believe it should be a woman’s choice” are giving aid and comfort to the greatest mass murder in history.
- Status